I think there should be a special permitting process to purchase a weapon like that. Maybe other long term lawful gun owners should get to help decide who should have access to such weapons. Most gun owners I have spoken with say they would have never given this kid any weapon. Idk.

He was able to commit mass destruction with a 'simple' .45.

There is simply no legitimate reason for a civilian to have anything more than a 6-round magazine. If you suck at hitting game that bad that you have to spray the wilderness with bullets, pick another "sport." These large magazines are mass murderers' tools and should be illegal.

You really have no clue do you?
Almost every state limits the rounds you can carry in your hunting rifle when hunting.
The hi cap mags are great for competition shooting, target shooting and just plinking.

Your little inconvenience when you are playing is more than worth thwarting mass murderers.

Spare me the mansplaning with your "you have no clue" crap. I am sick of it.

The VA killer, Cho, used 10 round mags, Adam Lanza had 30 round mags, but he reloaded after using only half of the mags capacity.

And just how do you propose to make them illegal? There are literally millions upon millions of hi cap mags in civilian hands, including mine which I won't give up.

Ask the families of the Aurora victims who didn't survive because the killer had a 100-round magazine.

It's easy to make high-capacity magazines illegal. Just pass the law. Then they stop getting manufactured and sold. Cops will confiscate any they come across in the course of an arrest, like they would have been able to do when they found those 40-round magazines in Roof's car. We can do buy backs. I would be happy for my taxes to go to buying back high capacity magazines and guns of any type, but especially semi-automatic rifles and guns.

Other countries have done it. We can do it too.

That's why the military doesn't use them, besides being heavy and wasteful of ammunition. IIRC most of Aurora shooters victims were hit by handgun fire.

Dozens can be mowed down before they jam, if at all. There's nothing "good" about these drum magazines.

It's another "beer keg law"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=362693#362827

or ban on the sale of bongs. It's in order to have been seen to "DO something", whether
it actually saves lives or not...

Yes, I know there's gunner videos out there of lightning fast reloads--done under controlled, no stress conditions. In actual practice it would invariably take longer. The gunman would fumble. That is how the Giffords shooter was brought down. A little old lady grabbed his magazine as he fumbled to reload.

If it saves any lives, it is worth the horrible inconvenience to you of having to change mags a lot while plinking.

The Patriot Act, et al, and many other intrusions were similarly touted.

Is that all you got?

There's another historical example you lot seem to be unaware of:



http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/

I've yet to see a one of you explain why *your* desired Prohibition 3.0
would work any better than the failed one against alcohol and cannabis

Having to reload is what allowed the people to stop Gifford's shooter.

It's just common sense. There is no legitimate need for civilians to have 30-round magazines, not when they are so dangerous in the hands of mass murderers.

Speed limits don't stop all speeders, but no one is talking about doing away with speed limits.

In the gun control case, the appropriate analogy would be banning fast (i.e. high capacity) cars.

Speed limits allow violators to be penalized after they do something wrong. Banning fast cars penalizes everyone because someone else did something wrong.

And ever-so-slight conceptual difference that is apparently too subtle for many folks to understand.

I was responding to the suggestion that if a high capacity magazine ban would not have stopped the Charleston shooter, we should not have high capacity magazine bans.

In other words, the poster was implying that if a law does not stop all acts it criminalizes, we should not have that law. That is of course absurd.

The other side of it is "just because we could have a law does not mean we should have a law". It is as absurd to have laws on everything as it is to have laws on nothing. There is a middle ground, and as a liberal, I tend to err on the side of increased tolerance, self-determination and consensual conduct.

The logic in your last statement could be used to justify "stop & frisk", Arizona's "papers please" law, Bloombergs' "Big Gulp ban", surveillance abuses under the Patriot Act and everything else in your lifetime that was "a law" but which you think is a bad law and has been abused. We all know those laws won't stop all the things they are designed to, but hey, why not pass them anyway?

You used a poor analogy to make your example. As I said, there is a difference between "you're a bad person because you did something wrong" laws (speed limits) and "you're a bad person because someone else did something wrong" laws (ban all cars capable of speeding). You are proposing adding the latter while at the same time the administration is all-but-ignoring many of the former (link).

In addition, I would appreciate it if someone could justify "preventive coercion" as an ideal for government that they would feel absolutely comfortable with if we end up with a conservative Congress, White House and Supreme Court in 2016.

Not in this instance you aren't. You are erring on the side of denying people's determination to reign in gun violence just because a minority (mostly white males) of Americans intolerantly insist on crazy, dangerous shit like open carry in urban areas and 30-round magazines.

And for what? Because you like to play with guns.

This gun hobby costs 30,000 American lives each year. Not letting people live is the ultimate intolerance.

Really? Who said I wasn't interested in reigning it in? Looks like my comments provided quite a few suggestions about reigning it in. And since the vast majority of gun owners are not the problem when it comes to gun violence, it would seem on the face of it that my suggestions aimed at the problem would have a greater impact than your suggestions aimed at everyone who isn't the problem. And what's more amusing is that my suggestions have been done and have worked. Spectacularly well.

Feel free to have the last word. There may still be a few people out there who haven't heard your message that "tolerance" really means "live your life according to my rules and I'll tolerate you."

Australia's gun control laws, coupled with a buy back program, dramatically reduced the number of guns in private hands. The result was no mass shootings since 1996, a 50% decrease in gun deaths overall and an 80% decrease of suicide by gun.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/

Your cop task force would do nothing about gun suicide, by far the main type of gun death. Nor would it prevent the horrific accidental deaths of little kids we hear about on an almost daily basis, because there are so many guns in the US.

But hey, I'll take any reduction in gun violence at this point. So is the NRA/GOP willing to fund these task forces? Seems to me they don't. Seems to me their solution to every problem is more guns.

You're wrecked a perfectly good appeal to emotion

Boggles the mind the gun freaks dont get it.

I really don't get this clinging to assault rifles you want to play with them join the military I did, you wont even have to pay for ammo make sure you get combat infantry they have the most toys.

I am a gun owner but do not have any automatic rifles don't need it for hunting or target practice.

Have a few friends that are fascinated by military style weapons but would not get past the first week of basic training.

They are not toys

we are talking about semi-automatic rifles. I don't "play" with my AR-15s - they are the standard for competitive target shooting which I enjoy with my entire family. They are also perfect for my wife and daughter - light weight, low recoil, ergonomic and adjustable.

No gun is a toy. Owning guns is a serious business.

It's a range trick... Not a practical technique.

Semi-autos won't be banned.

into range tricks, etc., are a danger in our society, if for no other reason that their gun enthusiasm helps contribute to tragedies like the Charleston shootings.

Human-shaped targets are, of course, used for training. I have used them from time to time for practice. I dont ever expect to use a gun in self defense, but if I do, i want to know what to do with it. But I admit that's mainly vanity. I keep my guns unloaded, and locked up. If someone ever invaded my house, i'd have to politely ask them to wait a minut while i got my gun out!

I agree that there is a gun culture that feeds the Roofs of the world. but i dont see much a path to opposing that at the moment... And not sure that it's worth the huge amount of political capital it would take.

this is not a war zone.

The political capital argument is eroding, thank god.

Truthfully, I don't care about someone who keeps a gun or two at home. More than that, or strapping one on to go to Chuck E Cheese, ought to be dealt with.

Don't need to split technical hairs, semi auto is as fast as you can pull the trigger, you can buy a lightweight 223 caliber bolt action. Perfect for target and hunting.

And it is not hard to modify a AR-15 to full auto.

I really enjoy firearms but unfortunately there are people who enjoy killing with them, a bit harder to do with a bolt or lever action rifle at least in the numbers that are happening way to often.

I will keep my rifles thank you very much. I see no point in changing my life to cater to your irrational fears.

And btw - it is very hard to convert AR15's to full auto. Civil ARs are specifically designed to make conversion difficult. How many instances of converted rifles being used in crimes can you find?

Some people are convinced, despite lack of *any* confirming evidence,
that this is done regularly.

I find these people to be not very different mentally than those who believe that this:

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/

or professional wrestling are real

The mechanics to convert to full auto it is simple for anyone with basic metalwork skills, and actually 99 percent of the time in the military the weapon is kept in semi mode, full auto is mostly used for suppressive fire, what I do believe is civilians do not need semi autoloader firearms period. Does that clear up my discrepancy?

Semi auto weapons are perfectly up to the task of mass murder. Manual loaders take a bit more effort.

It is the reasonable gun control advocates that concern me more - they might actually get something done. Controllers like you who flaunt their extreme views as some sort moral purity test never seem to accomplish anything meaningful.

You think its an extreme view I think its necessary, handguns are the biggest killers and most have limited to no training on using them tempers flare gun gets fired.

And I said auto loaders, get yourself a revolver or a muzzeloader I think the second amendment would have been worded a lot differently if they had any idea what the casual yahoo could get their hands on.

74% of Americans oppose a handgun ban, but good luck with that.

Any AR-15 manufactured after 1986 can't legally be converted and the ATF mandated that the AR-15 be made in such a way that the parts from an M-16 will not fit into an AR-15.

I have used military equipment that most gun nuts masturbate over.

I was also trained to use said equipment, not like most lame civilian gun safety courses some states do not even require that before purchasing a handgun let alone a rifle.

I was trained, too. To convert from semi- to full-auto, move the switch, right?

Do today's M16's have a full-auto option? Or are they limited to 3-round bursts? Can a 3-round burst weapon be easily converted to full-auto?

I don't think most states require any training to purchase. More require training to carry concealed.

typical. Oh yeah, are you into that competition where you shoot around, over, etc., walls and other obstacles playing militia? I ask since you say competitive shooting and plinking are why you feel like you need a bunch of hicap mags to be happy.

is none of your business period.

with my legally owned and carried firearms.

Society's polluters?

Society is less tolerant of those who need gun to walk down the street.

You just keep on thinking that Hoyt, meanwhile, more states are liberalizing their firearms laws, more people are acquiring CHL's, but I understand why you're against LAWFUL citizens carrying firearms.

Confederate flag, indeed.

what you have milling around, and stopping at the table with a confederate flag draped across it.

Can't believe any liberal recommends physically restraining someone for exercising their protected rights. That really sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Plus, one has to look longterm on these things.

I just pulled out my world globe, and it looks like we're not in Australia, we're in the US where we have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, including those dastardly semi auto rifles and handguns.

Again, Hoyt, we're not Australia, if you're so enamored of Australia's firearms laws, then I would suggest you move there.

Thanks for pointing that out to me, I would've never known without your info.

Alcohol about 88,000.

Both are bigger killers than guns.

Just saying that if your goal is saving lives, you're starting at the wrong end of the priority list.

None of that is like some yahoo with gun.

I oppose open carry (except for legitimate purposes, such as transport or living history/re-enactment) and favor 100% background checks for all transfers.

But although such incidents are spectacular, and get lots of notice, from a public safety standpointthey really are a drop in the bucket.

It's like airline crashes. They get losts of attention, but folks barely recognize that riding a motorcycle is hundreds of times more dangerous.

waling among families in public.

customers' sick needs.

compared to the paranoid righties who get the thing already made. brother built his piece by piece.

yes I've held it . it's a heavy son of a bitch. dads though he got his in the mail mostly plastic light weight toy.

Let's hear how stronger gun control would have prevented this.

I like to take a fact-based approach so would like to see this evidence.

In acts of gun violence. The assault weapon bogeyman is interesting when one realizes handguns account for around 90% of all gun violence. I believe shotguns are around 4% and rifles are around 4%. You would think people would focus on the preferred weapon of choice.

I wonder why he didn't get one? They cost about the same as a decent handgun, you can build an AR-15 with used parts for about $400.

And I think that the DA should seriously consider charging dear old dad with anyone of several crimes. Dad essentially said, "I know you're depressed, have a long history of drug abuse, are a virulent racist, and are currently being prosecuted for two unrelated felonies, but it's your birthday, so I got you this handgun!"

He used that money to buy the gun himself.

The initial reports were that he was given the gun directly.

fire many more rounds in case of competition they do not have to reload as often. Then the argument with small magazines reloading only takes a short time and therefore can still be as deadly. We hear about mental health issues and we have not taken one step forward on any of these. We are intelligent and reasonable people, why are we just sitting back and these mass shootings continue. Let us sit down together and make reasonable decisions. I own guns but would never own a rapid fire weapon such as the AR-15, if I can not get the job done in less than 10 shots, I do not need the privilege of owning a larger capacity. The hunters I know does not take AK-47 to hunt, they do not want to destroy the game.

The battle cry of "they gonna take my guns away" needs to be put to bed, another conspiracy theory. Let's stop the availability of weapons to the lonely young men who may be suffering mental illness and get help for them.

The AR-15 is not a rapid fire rifle. It shoots at the same rate as all other semi-auto rifles in the last 100 years: as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Lots of people use semi-auto AK-47 rifles to hunt with. It has similar ballistics as your father's .30-30 rifle and is more ergonomic.

Hunting regulations usually limit you to 5-round magazines regardless of what rifle you are using and regardless of what action-type the rifle is. See your state's regulations for details.